Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

West

Regulars
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    197

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by West

  1. Penn Jillette on Larry King

    in Intellectuals and the Media

    Posted

    OCON is in Vegas in 2010, so perhaps one can hope :rolleyes:

    Aside from that, I have to disagree with the above. Penn made numerous concessions that he shouldn't have, and his supposed "argument" for individualism was vague and unsupported. "I don't really like the collective making decisions, I like individuals" was a weak statement. He could have been much more effective and direct; I've seen much better from Penn.

  3. The Essentiality of Reading Atlas

    in Literature

    Posted

    According to Miss Rand, the purpose of art is to provide "emotional fuel", it's primary appeal is to the sense of life. not directly the intellect where understanding occurrs. Given all of this, it can be niether necessary nor sufficient to provide understanding except as a by-product, since the main target is the emotions and the emotions are not tools of cognition, Reason is the sole tool of cognition.

    Are you impying that I am dishonest? About 6 months before I read ATLAS SHRUGGED, I had sufficient knowledge of Objectivism to want to make it mine and did so.

    I'm not implying you are dishonest at all. Perhaps mistaken, and Rationalistic in this example since you are connecting concepts in superficial ways, but let me explain where I'm coming from a bit. First, that's not the purpose of art according to Rand. To quote from the Romantic Manifesto (page 21 in The Psycho-Epistemology of Art):

    It is important to stress, however, that even though moral values are inextricably involved in art, they are involved only as a consequence, not as a causal determinant: the primary focus of art is metaphysical, not ethical. Art is not the “handmaiden” of morality, its basic purpose is not to educate, to reform or to advocate anything. The concretization of a moral ideal is not a textbook on how to become one. The basic purpose of art is not to teach, but to show—to hold up to man a concretized image of his nature and his place in the universe.

    Yes, we experience art through our emotions, but that's not the end of the line. Since we are discussing literature, we're dealing with substantively conceptual material; if we were discussing music, I'd make no quibble over your argument about sense of life. I take Rand's position on art as far as it's purpose is concerned to be the concretization of a specific kind. It does serve the purpose of emotional fuel, but that's not it's primary or fundamental purpose.

    As to why I think that reading Atlas Shrugged is essential to call oneself an Objectivist, I want to refer to another quote that sums it up for me:

    Art is the indispensable medium for the communication of a moral ideal . . . This does not mean that art is a substitute for philosophical thought: without a conceptual theory of ethics, an artist would not be able successfully to concretize an image of the ideal. But without the assistance of art, ethics remains in the position of theoretical engineering: art is the model-builder . . .

    I can't remember where I heard it first, but I believe Peikoff once said something in a lecture about AS and the Fountainhead being absolutely essential for the concretization of Objectivism, and specifically Objectivism. If you did not have either of those works, you would not have the idea of what Rand means by "the ideal man" or what a consummate exemplar of her philosophy would be like. They are indispensable for the concretization and understanding of Objectivism specifically. To be clear, I think that one can still agree with the Objectivist principles outlined in the various non-fiction Rand has written and consider oneself in agreement with Objectivism, just as not having read Objectivist works (whether fiction or non-fiction) doesn't make you any less pro-reason or pro-life, but in my opinion, the fiction is the necessary (but not sufficient) condition to be a dyed-in-the-wool Objectivist.

  4. The Essentiality of Reading Atlas

    in Literature

    Posted

    If aesthetics is a necessary branch of not only philosophy (and more to the point, if art is an important value to man), but Objectivism in particular, then I think that reading Atlas Shrugged is a necessary but not sufficient condition of honestly considering oneself to be an Objectivist.

  5. Serge Marshennikov

    in Visual Arts

    Posted

    I fail to see how depictions of beauty, sensuality, femininity, etc. are not universal themes. This is off-topic, but in perhaps another thread I would be interested in seeing the kind of art that the critics of this particular artist find to be consummate examples of "universality in theme," "talent," "imagination," and "artistic worthiness."

  6. Is it immoral to work for one of the "evil" banks? (They own

    in Ethics

    Posted

    Others have answered, the main question, but I have a secondary comment. Re: this quote from your post (see bold text)The banks do not own the Fed in any substantial way. It does not matter that they contribute to the bank's capital. The bottom line is: control. If the government forces banks to give money, it is a tax. If the government then takes that money and gives it to an entity called the Fed, that is controlled by the government, it does not make that entity a bank-controlled entity. Even if the government calls the money "capital" and keeps it there "in the name of" the "contributing" banks, that still does not change its essential nature. Even if the government tells some of the bank CEOs to serve on the board, that does not change its essential nature.

    There was a time when the local Fed-banks were a little more independent, listening a lot more to their local banks. Of these Feds, the New York Fed used to sometimes even call the shots over the Fed Board. However, this political tussle was finally won by the Fed Board, which is basically a government institution.

    This has come up a bit, and I want to get into the detail because this is a recurring Libertarian fiction that people like Ron Paul also repeat.

    If one steps back more broadly, one will often find that this is a typical way government works. They decide to intervene in some area. At first, businessmen fight the government off. Finally, the businessmen realize that they are not going to win the argument. So, instead, they get together and lobby about what the direction of policy ought to be. Sometimes, they even ask for the government to form some type of policy-making board to which they (the businessmen) can nominate members.

    Libertarians often portray these as actions of monopolists who were trying to use government power for their business. This is definitely true in some cases. However, that is not the majority of the examples. More typically, the businessmen are not the prime-movers of such governmental action, but are trying to play defense as best they understand how. Call them pragmatic, but they're only reacting.

    I completely agree with your assessment. The last paragraph particularly; this happened with AIG. There were parts of AIG that were healthy, and parts that weren't. If AIG had the ability to move its assets freely between different divisions, they could have averted a lot of problems. They were also prevented from selling parts of itself off altogether as well. They ended up "accepting" bail-out money, and arguably, had to as it was the last move available to remain in existence. Call them pragmatic, but government pretty much eliminated a lot of the actions that would be rational for them to take in order to fix some of their problems.

  9. Have you listened to Objective Communication?

    in Miscellaneous Topics

    Posted

    Yes, but I can buy a book on any topic for about $15.00 on average (often less). Also, course fee has to cover instructors time every time course is given. This is recorded.

    That being said, I bought UO and I consider it worth it. The cost, however, was a deterent for me for purchasing more lectures.

    I meant for a semester--you are paying for every time Peikoff had to show up to deliver the next lecture as well. Course it's recorded, but as far as covering the cost of an instructor, the comparative cost for a recorded lecture of the same length and quality by any other preeminent intellectual would probably be even more.

    It's also true that you can buy books on the cheap, and if you know of any that can possibly be considered a substitute to this lecture, I'd be eager to know about it.

    Another way to offset the cost of the lecture is to attend the OAC (and have the benefit of being graded and such by Onkar Ghate).

  11. What Peikoff courses have you studied?

    in Miscellaneous Topics

    Posted · Edited by West

    I'm writing something about studying and understanding Objectivism. If you'll give me two seconds of your time, answering the poll would help me to get a rough estimate of what percentage of Objectivists are familiar with these courses. If you're feeling very generous, I'm interested in the following follow up questions.

    (1) If you've listened to more than one, which did you find most helpful in better understanding Objectivism? Why?

    (2) If you've intentionally neglected one of them, which one and why?

    (3) If you haven't listened to any of them, why not?

    (4) If you've listened to one or more, did you just listen, or did you study it? Meaning did you take detailed notes, do the homework, relisten to segments you found confusing, etc.

    (5) How important do you think these courses are to fully understanding Objectivism?

    Thanks.

    (1) Among those listed, Understanding Objectivism was the most helpful to me, as it takes special consideration for accounting for methods of thinking that we may or may not be aware of, but that can and do affect how we integrate Objectivism as such. Objectivism Through Induction follows as a close second.

    (4) I listen to lectures while biking to school or the library (as well as while I'm at the library), which means I listen to them in short, 15 minute to 30 minute bursts. I basically complete one lecture a day, as I take about two trips (two times back and forth) a day. This gives me adequate time to think about each new idea presented in the lecture, connecting the ideas both to (a) what I've already listened to as well as (which is really just a part of) (b ) what is already part of my personal context. For those lectures that contained homework (like Objectivism Through Induction), I'd either have a mental idea already of how I would complete the tasks, or I would complete the section at the library if it was more complex.

    (5) I think they are crucial to fully understand Objectivism. Reading the novels and the non-fiction can only take you so far--not everyone can make every connection or identify every principle (not only is it not an automatic or obvious process, it takes a lot of time!). Some will excel at a faster pace than others, but those who have the benefit of the lectures will avoid the numerous pitfalls that are actually very common among any discipline or study. If your validation for Capitalism is something like

    "Man lives by his rational faculty, the initiation of force negates the rational faculty, therefore man needs a system that restricts the initiation of force and protects individual rights, which is Capitalism,"

    then you still have a ways to go. The lectures are probably the best source for straightening out this kind of Rationalistic deduction.

    I've noticed that a lot of people knock the lectures not just for their price, but because it's easier to read a book. In my opinion, and I believe Peikoff makes this point in one of the lectures, if you merely transcribed the lectures, there would be diminishment. They would have to be specially written and edited for a book/pamphlet/what have you, which actually might be a good suggestion. Also, for those that need more of a 'visual' element while they are studying these lectures, the handouts that were given at the past conferences for the various lectures can be found here:

    http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/supplements.asp

    For those that find the prices restrictive, your best bet is to find the nearest college campus club, as they can borrow these lectures from the ARI (not too long ago they were getting rid of their stock of lectures on tape, and I know many of the campus clubs out there received many of these as well, so your nearest campus club might already have copies).

×
×
  • Create New...